[olePigeon]

All that's going to result from banning abortions is women who aren't ready or don't want to have children (regardless of the initial prevenitive measures) will find other and more dangerous methods of having an abortion.

Banning abortions isn't going to help anything, it'll only make things worse. However, I think increased spending for Planned Parenthood, sex education, etc. will help to lower abortion rates.

[Dakar]

It'll reduce the amount of abortions that occur. And that's all the conservatives are after.

[Monique]

Since we cannot count on most men here to protect us against an unwanted pregnancy why should we listen to you afterward.

Abortions go illegal; well you conservative men will be happy to know that the death toll of women will go up and so will the mutilation of many other women.

You do not give a damn about women why don't you say so.

[Monique]

Sorry double post.

[Monique]

Sorry triple post.

[besson3c]

I just have one question. It is the same old question I've been asking for a while now and haven't had a great answer to, outside of a great conversation with eBuddy on this.

Why does the government need to legislate what they think is the morally correct choice, and in doing so dictate our own choices and what woman should do with their own bodies? Why do we condone a government being in the business of creating legislation making these difficult choices for us? Somebody having an abortion does *not* affect the rest of us, this is not a public safety issue.

If you want to talk about tax payers paying for abortions, fine, do that. However, the argument over this issue from a moral standpoint is going to continue to go on and on (I'll argue that we do not pay for private abortion clinics in our taxes, so there is no "cost" of permitting abortions). Let's separate it from the question of whether this should be the business of our government. The answer is no.


How can you guys call yourself Republicans yet be against our own personal freedoms and liberties? This is the Neo-con way of thinking, not the Republican way.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think the answer to your question is the same one about slavery and civil rights and women voting: what entities among us deserve human rights, and which rights, and when. The legislation is simply regarding whether embryos and/or fetuses have the same human rights as we human beings do.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar

It'll reduce the amount of abortions that occur. And that's all the conservatives are after.

I disagree. I guess we'll see when/if it gets passed. People will just leave the state, that's all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

Since we cannot count on most men here to protect us against an unwanted pregnancy why should we listen to you afterward.

Abortions go illegal; well you conservative men will be happy to know that the death toll of women will go up and so will the mutilation of many other women.

You do not give a damn about women why don't you say so.

Broken record....

Seek help Monique.

[hyteckit]

Damn google ads.

-------------------
Considering Abortion?
Help Available 24/7 Call toll free (800) 395-4357

[kellybelly]

One of my pet peeves is when people argue about using abortion "as a form of birth control."

birth control
n : voluntary limitation or control of the number of children born

Abortion is birth control because it is used to control if a woman gives birth.

It doesn't prevent pregnancy because it's (quite obviously) performed after a pregnancy has taken place. So it's not a contraceptive form of birth control like the Pill or condoms or IUDs, but it can definitely be defined as birth control because it is used to make a woman un-pregnant.

/rant

[mrmister]

Wake me up when Kevin or Spliffdaddy have a single woman on this thread that shares their views--then I might be able to get interested in this crap they're dishing out. Until then, I'll just assume they're men who get their rocks off speaking for women, telling them what to do with their bodies and generally letting everyone know how big their c0cks are.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kellybelly

One of my pet peeves is when people argue about using abortion "as a form of birth control."

birth control
n : voluntary limitation or control of the number of children born

Abortion is birth control because it is used to control if a woman gives birth.

It doesn't prevent pregnancy because it's (quite obviously) performed after a pregnancy has taken place. So it's not a contraceptive form of birth control like the Pill or condoms or IUDs, but it can definitely be defined as birth control because it is used to make a woman un-pregnant.

/rant

Meh, I don't think killing off ones young should be a "birth control" method. How about that?

Originally Posted by mrmister

Wake me up when Kevin or Spliffdaddy have a single woman on this thread that shares their views--then I might be able to get interested in this crap they're dishing out. Until then, I'll just assume they're men who get their rocks off speaking for women, telling them what to do with their bodies and generally letting everyone know how big their c0cks are.

More women are against abortion than there are women for it bub.

Not many women come to these sites. For obvious reasons.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

More women are against abortion than there are women for it bub.

Surprisingly there's basically no gender gap in attitudes to abortion: Myn and wymyn agree on it, despite what some people say about it being a male vs. female issue. It's really not.

But when you say "women are against abortion" that really depends on what you mean by against. Two-thirds of Americans don't want Roe overturned. It's true that most people support most of the minor restrictions, like parental consent for minors, but they're also clearly against laws making abortion illegal like this SD law. I bet a national survey would show only about 15% support for that law. I bet even in South Dakota, where it passed with huge majorities, it would be opposed by the people.

Here's a state-by-state poll of whether people call themselves pro-choice or pro-life, and although SD is one of the more pro-life states, it's still only 49-47%. Not even a majority of people in SD call themselves pro-life. There are only 10 states in the country, according to that poll, where a majority call themselves pro-life.

[Kevin]

He asked me to wake him up when a SINGLE woman shares my views. I was just pointing out more women share my views than not.

A majority of women, 54%, say abortion is morally wrong, while roughly a third (35%) say it is morally acceptable. Men are more evenly divided in their views of abortion, with 47% saying it is wrong and 45% saying it is acceptable. [May 2-5, Gallup 2005]

Seems like it's more MEN that are FOR abortion, than even women themselves.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Seems like it's more MEN that are FOR abortion, than even women themselves.

Nobody is FOR abortions. You certainly can not deduce that from the results of that poll you quoted. Stop being intentionally misleading.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Nobody is FOR abortions. You certainly can not deduce that from the results of that poll you quoted. Stop being intentionally misleading.

TETENAL how about those who believe it's morally wrong.
BTW when someone says the are FOR abortion, it means they are PRO-abortion. They believe abortion is ok.

And yes, there are people that is FOR abortion. They see it as just another means of birth control. And not killing anything.

The whole "I think abortion is totally wrong, but I am pro-choice" is a very spineless stance.

Those of us that think it's wrong, think so because it's murder.

How can someone be against murder, but be for it being legal?

It's called a cop-out. It's a way people can make themselves feel morally superior while still supporting "their side"

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin

TETENAL how about those who believe it's morally wrong.

Those don't do it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

How can someone be against murder, but be for it being legal?

Murder is different. It affects another person – the victim.

[Spliffdaddy]

huh?

The aborted child isn't a victim?

[Taliesin]

Why not stigmatising pre-marriage and outside-marriage-sexual intercourse as being something morally abhorrent?

And supporting it by not using sexual intercourses in movies and media in general.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Those don't do it.

Um how is that relevent to what I said. My original point still stands.

Murder is different. It affects another person – the victim.

Ah I forgot, and unborn baby has no rights.

The very beings that we should be fighting to protect, because they cannot protect themselves has no rights.

I guess I am one of those compassionate conservatives. I think ALL living humans should have rights.

Abortion for the most part is a very selfish act.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I disagree. I guess we'll see when/if it gets passed. People will just leave the state, that's all.

You're telling me people will leave a state based on a law that can affect on 50% of the population a small percentage of the time? Please.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You're telling me people will leave a state based on a law that can affect on 50% of the population a small percentage of the time? Please.

Are you dense on purpose? Of course the people will just leave the state to get the abortion, then return the other day.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Are you dense on purpose? Of course the people will just leave the state to get the abortion, then return the other day.

Don't blame your wording on him being dense. What you said could have been taken many ways.

I know people that HAVE moved out of a state when they passed laws that disagreed with.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Are you dense on purpose? Of course the people will just leave the state to get the abortion, then return the other day.

No, I wasn't dense on purpose, but I love you too.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah I forgot, and unborn baby has no rights.

I thought it was clear that I'm not talking about late term abortions of babies.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The very beings that we should be fighting to protect, because they cannot protect themselves has no rights.

I guess I am one of those compassionate conservatives.

There are many ways to reduce the number of abortions. Sex education of young people, easier access to the morning after pill, family benefits, Kindergarten places etc. pp. Why do conservatives only want to resort to the criminalization of women, which isn't the most effective of the means, if you care so much about the children?

[Spliffdaddy]

"Criminalization of women" ?

Heck no. We're talking about the criminalization of abortion providers.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I just have one question. It is the same old question I've been asking for a while now and haven't had a great answer to, outside of a great conversation with eBuddy on this.

I appreciate the kudos and would like to take another stab at it.

Why does the government need to legislate what they think is the morally correct choice, and in doing so dictate our own choices and what woman should do with their own bodies?

Currently, the Federal government has usurped authority over the State. The Federal government has decided that it is "wrong" to legislate against abortion. Morality can be summed up as an innate knowledge of right and wrong. For whatever reason, the Federal government has in fact taken it upon themselves to deem something wrong, and require the States to be in lock step. If you say that it is "wrong" to impose your morality on others, by what sense of morality have you deemed this behavior "wrong" and are you not making that assertion yourself and imposing it on others? By what moral compass have you decided legislating against abortion is wrong? I believe there is more legislative accountability at the local level. I believe there is more representation at the local level. By laying a Federal foundation, they are taking accountability for representation away from those at the local level, where it's more effective and convoluting it to the national level where at least half have lost their voice in a representative democracy. This is still an issue of "right and wrong" and no matter which way you cut it, you are imposing your ideal of it upon another. Either it is "wrong" to impose morality or it is not, you are still forced to use some compass of morality in the decision.

Why do we condone a government being in the business of creating legislation making these difficult choices for us?

I am for smaller government. The State government is smaller than the Federal government. There is more accountability for representation at the local level than there is currently at the Federal level. At least half of us have been required to conform to the Federal government's ideal of right and wrong against our will. Every poll I've seen has shown an overwhelming majority that either wholly reject abortion or allow it only in the miniscule cases of rape, incest, and health of mother. Pro-Life is viewed as "Right-wing evangelical fundamentalist Christian" and it is no surprise to me that the number of professed evangelical or fundamentalist Christians correlates with the number of professed Pro-Lifers. However, it is apparent in almost every statistic I can find that while many are hesitant to call themselves Pro-Life, they do indeed hold a Pro-Life stance. Most do not understand the scope of Roe V Wade.

Somebody having an abortion does *not* affect the rest of us, this is not a public safety issue.

Per John Hopkins University, "Occurrence of genital tract infection following elective abortion is a well-known complication." These rates were measured and found 5.2% for first trimester abortions and up to 18.5% in midtrimester. Other complications include; Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, post-abortal Chlamydia infection. Conservatively, one in one hundred require blood transfusions. Blood transfusions are known to cause conditions such as; Viral hepatitis, it is estimated that at least 150 people are annually exposed to AIDS via transfusions in general. Abortion conditons such as blood clotting, depression, ABC link to breast cancer, botched reproductive organs, and abortions performed in less than sterile clinics are common. It is estimated that there are at least 23 deaths annually not directly attributed to abortion yet due to the above conditions caused by it. The number of deaths caused by illegal abortions or "back alley" abortions just prior to ruling in 1973, were reportedly less than 39 deaths annually.

Now, when you say abortion does not affect the rest of us, I beg to differ. Per the US Department of Health & Human Services, guilt and low self-worth are important factors among those accused of child abuse and infanticide. Low self-esteem among child batterers and those who have had an abortion (found to cause profound guilt and depression) run hand in hand. Over 60% of abortions are performed on women with one or more children. Reported cases of child abuse has increased 1,497%. Violent juvenile offenders arrest rates have almost doubled, and the number of children living in poverty has increased from approximately 15% to 20%. The number of teen pregnancies has more than doubled, and ironically the number of teen births has increased to almost 40 per thousand from 22. The number of single parent families since the legalization of abortion has increased from 10% to almost 25%. I believe the "way out" provided by the ideal of legalized abortion is causing societal concerns the likes of which we cannot resolve. It has fostered an attitude of nonchalence in considering the implications of unsafe sex and has led to an overall increase in irresponsible sexual behavior as evidenced by STD rates and unwanted pregnancies in general. Abortion causes and effects that affect us all? I say yes.

If you want to talk about tax payers paying for abortions, fine, do that. However, the argument over this issue from a moral standpoint is going to continue to go on and on (I'll argue that we do not pay for private abortion clinics in our taxes, so there is no "cost" of permitting abortions). Let's separate it from the question of whether this should be the business of our government. The answer is no.

It has already been made the business of the Federal government. The thing to do at this point is to take the decision away from the larger, more bureaucratic Federal government and place the decision in the more accountable hands of the local State governments. Statistically, 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Those who pay for the procedure themselves may also receive insurance reimbursement later. As of 2004, 17 States have used public funds to subsidize abortions for women who couldn't pay. Per (Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, 2002, op. cit.), In states in which Medicaid covers medically necessary abortions, women with Medicaid had an abortion rate four times as high as that among women without Medicaid coverage. In states that do not cover abortions, the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was twice as high as that among women without Medicaid coverage. Assuming Medicaid is only supposed to be used to fund abortions in which the health of mother is involved and knowing the rate of abortions performed as claimed by the women themselves due to their health risk, it is apparent the policy is being severely abused. Tax dollars are in fact being used to fund a practice I believe is archaic, destructive to society, and abusive in general.

How can you guys call yourself Republicans yet be against our own personal freedoms and liberties? This is the Neo-con way of thinking, not the Republican way.

I'm not concerned with fitting a particular political ideal. If I were, I'd be particularly dissappointed with what Republican (and for that matter, democratic) policy has become, Federal.

Republic; A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. In our republic, this is you and me. However, when "morality" is dictated at the Federal level, I lose representation. It needs to be at the State level where I have more clout and where my representatives have more accountability. I'm surprised at your indictment of the Republican ideal when I'm calling for State's rights (traditionally one of the more profound ideals of Republicanism) and you seem to be in favor of the Federal status quo.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

TETENAL how about those who believe it's morally wrong.
BTW when someone says the are FOR abortion, it means they are PRO-abortion. They believe abortion is ok.

And yes, there are people that is FOR abortion. They see it as just another means of birth control. And not killing anything.

The whole "I think abortion is totally wrong, but I am pro-choice" is a very spineless stance.

Those of us that think it's wrong, think so because it's murder.

How can someone be against murder, but be for it being legal?

It's called a cop-out. It's a way people can make themselves feel morally superior while still supporting "their side"

That's so incredibly wrong I can't believe the person who said it can even manage to dress themselves in the morning.

1. Your quote said they think abortion is acceptable. That doesn't mean they're PRO-abortion, as you put it. For example, I think Windows is acceptable, but that doesn't mean I'm PRO-Windows. Why do you think we have different words for it ("acceptable" vs "pro-*")?

2. "those of us that think it's wrong, think so because it's murder." Way to go speaking for everyone on one side of this debate. Mind if I say everyone who is pro-life is a fundamental christian who's just using the abortion issue to push America towards Jesus? Yes? Why don't we try to avoid deciding things by painting half the population with one brush.

3. You can think something is morally wrong, but not want it to be illegal. For example, I think divorce is morally wrong, but I don't want it outlawed. If divorce were the issue instead of abortion, I would be "pro-choice" for divorce even though I oppose it. Believe it or not, people who aren't you are capable of seeing shades of gray. Many of those people see embryos and fetuses as "partly human," where euthanizing them** is undesirable but not abhorrent, like a dog or cat. The comparison is more accurate than you might think, to anthropomorphize an entity that bears little objective similarity to genuine human beings.

**them = embryos or fetuses within a certain gestational window which is different for everyone.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The whole "I think abortion is totally wrong, but I am pro-choice" is a very spineless stance.

I guess thinking some things should not be said, but still being in favor of free speech is equally spineless, right? We can't possibly be in favor of free will. Clearly the law is meant to force everyone to act in a wise and moral manner, right?

[hyteckit]

I think anal sex is totally wrong, but I against anti-sodomy laws.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I think murder is totally wrong, but I'm against anti-murder laws.

I see your point.

No, seriously, abortion is murder.
Everyone knows that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman usually leads to pregnancy, so why do so many people practice it without being married, ie. without being financially nor psychologically ready to care for a new life.

The best method to prevent such murder for economic reasons is either a highly developed adoption-system or better yet abstinence until married.

The human body is quite capable to excharge automatically in socalled wet dreams in order to reduce the sexual pressure, usually about once every three weeks.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I thought it was clear that I'm not talking about late term abortions of babies.

Um either was I.

There are many ways to reduce the number of abortions. Sex education of young people, easier access to the morning after pill, family benefits, Kindergarten places etc. pp. Why do conservatives only want to resort to the criminalization of women, which isn't the most effective of the means, if you care so much about the children?

Um, I am against all types of murder. Not just ones that fit into my political ideology. (Hint, I am against the Death Penalty too.)

I don't think "resorting" to the criminalizing of muderers can really be considered "resorting"

But then again, I would never want to "criminalize" such a thing. If abortions became illegal, and a woman was stupid enough to try to get one anyhow, I think she just punished herself.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

That's so incredibly wrong I can't believe the person who said it can even manage to dress themselves in the morning.

HA HA HA HA

Oh wait, that wasn't funny. That was actually really lame. But to be expected when talking to the "fuzzy heads'

1. Your quote said they think abortion is acceptable. That doesn't mean they're PRO-abortion, as you put it. For example, I think Windows is acceptable, but that doesn't mean I'm PRO-Windows. Why do you think we have different words for it ("acceptable" vs "pro-*")?

I am saying those people are trying to bake their cake and eat it too. Support abortion and their "side" while at the same time taking a morally "superior" stance of not being for abortion. They feel it keeps them safe from attacks, while still supporting their side.
AGAIN, it's like saying "I think the death penalty is horrible, and wrong. I could never pull the lever. But I am pro-death penalty.

If a Righty would say that, man you would have went off on him for being "too stupid to get dressed in the morning" no doubt.

2. "those of us that think it's wrong, think so because it's murder." Way to go speaking for everyone on one side of this debate.

I am talking about those against abortion. Us PRO LIFE people. That actually see it for what it is.

Mind if I say everyone who is pro-life is a fundamental christian who's just using the abortion issue to push America towards Jesus? Yes? Why don't we try to avoid deciding things by painting half the population with one brush.

Tell me, why else would anyone be pro-life?

3. You can think something is morally wrong, but not want it to be illegal. For example, I think divorce is morally wrong, but I don't want it outlawed. If divorce were the issue instead of abortion, I would be "pro-choice" for divorce even though I oppose it. Believe it or not, people who aren't you are capable of seeing shades of gray.

No, I am capable of seeing shades of grey. Just as I am capable of see through bullshit and spineless stances.

Many of those people see embryos and fetuses as "partly human," where euthanizing them** is undesirable but not abhorrent, like a dog or cat. The comparison is more accurate than you might think, to anthropomorphize an entity that bears little objective similarity to genuine human beings.

Yes, many people have been fooled into thinking something because we call it a new word now. The pro-abortion people have made sure we have been "retrained" to think growing living babies aren't really that! Some even call them parasites! Cancer! Fuzzy brained indeed.

In the end, people will believe anything that makes their fuzzy brain feel better at night .

I'd rather weed through the bullshit and call it what it is.

[Kevin]

I think murder is totally wrong, but I'm against anti-murder laws.

Exactly what type of thinking those against abortions but are pro-choice involves.

I bet most of the pro-choice people are anti-death penalty too.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I think anal sex is totally wrong, but I against anti-sodomy laws.

That's a completely different matter. Two people consent to have anal sex. In abortion, one person decides to kill another because she wants to absolve herself of the consequences of her own actions. Doesn't that seem a bit different than consentual sex to you? You can say it's not a person and all that crap, but you're completely deluded. I have two kids. I've seen the ultrasounds and heard the heartbeat (heartbeat as early as a few weeks after conception (which is 6 weeks gestational - from the woman's last period)). The kid across the street from me was born at 22 weeks and he's 14 years old now. In a number of states, he could have been legally aborted.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am saying those people are trying to bake their cake and eat it too. Support abortion and their "side" while at the same time taking a morally "superior" stance of not being for abortion. They feel it keeps them safe from attacks, while still supporting their side.
AGAIN, it's like saying "I think the death penalty is horrible, and wrong. I could never pull the lever. But I am pro-death penalty.

That's not remotely comparable. When people say they are against abortion but pro-choice, they mean they think it's usually the wrong decision, but they think people should be free to make that decision themselves. I think many of the things you have said in this thread are tacky and inappropriate, but I defend your right to say them legally — same principle.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes, many people have been fooled into thinking something because we call it a new word now. The pro-abortion people have made sure we have been "retrained" to think growing living babies aren't really that! Some even call them parasites! Cancer! Fuzzy brained indeed.

In the end, people will believe anything that makes their fuzzy brain feel better at night .

I'd rather weed through the bullshit and call it what it is.

What it is is your inability to actually argue a point, so you start calling the opposing side "fuzzy" and tossing out goofy stereotypes and other such nonsensical ad hominem attacks. If you can't argue your point legitimately, just bow out with some class, man.

By the way, what is with the overuse of the word "fuzzy" lately? Did you and aberdeenwriter get together and decide that would be your Meaningless Insult Of The Day? Should some of the liberals get together and decide on "misogynist bastard" to match, so then we can have a total lack of meaningful discussion and just throw out stereotypes all day?

[hyteckit]

How many Christians think pre-marrital sex is morally wrong? What percentage of Christians have pre-marrital sex?

What percentage of Christians think stripping for money is morally wrong? What percentage of Christians are

What percentage of Christians think pornography is morally wrong? What percentage of Christians watch porn?

Morally wrong != illegal

Just cause a majority of women think abortion is morally wrong, doesn't mean that they are against it. I think abortion is morally wrong. I'm not against abortion. I use to be against abortion when I was younger, but I realize the consequences of anti-abortion laws.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

That's a completely different matter. Two people consent to have anal sex. In abortion, one person decides to kill another because she wants to absolve herself of the consequences of her own actions. Doesn't that seem a bit different than consentual sex to you? You can say it's not a person and all that crap, but you're completely deluded. I have two kids. I've seen the ultrasounds and heard the heartbeat (heartbeat as early as a few weeks after conception (which is 6 weeks gestational - from the woman's last period)). The kid across the street from me was born at 22 weeks and he's 14 years old now. In a number of states, he could have been legally aborted.

Oh please people. I'm not comparing anal sex to abortion. I'm just saying you can think something is totally wrong, but don't necessary think a law to be pass to make it illegal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Exactly what type of thinking those against abortions but are pro-choice involves.

I bet most of the pro-choice people are anti-death penalty too.

I'm not sure you are being 100% fair here.

I'm not accusing you of binary thinking, but the polls leading into this discussion are binary. As incorrect as you think it is to be against abortion but pro-choice, the fact that people are doing so at the very least shows that the polls you presented about who is for and against abortion are not equivalent to a poll that discusses being for and against overturning RvW. I think this is the point people are trying to make by saying they are against abortion but pro-choice. At least that was the point during this discussion. I am sure however, there are people who make that argument without being encouraged to phrase things in such a binary matter.

I'm glad you brought up the death-penalty, since it illustrates similar problems if one is asked to express their opinions in a binary fashion (like in a poll).

I certainly believe there are people for whom society is much better after they have ended their existence. You'd have to be "fuzzy brained" not to.

I would pull the trigger on these people as well*.

However, throughout my lifetime, the state has demonstrated a horrible record when it comes to determining people's guilt. Here in Illinois, there were so many mistakes made the (pro-death penalty) governor at the time imposed a moratorium.

It's things of this nature that ultimately led me to being anti-death penalty. Not because we shouldn't kill people, but the state is just not capable of accurately determining who should live and who should die.

So my one sentence sum-up is that I am "against the death penalty" but I don't think that really explains the depth of my opinion.

With abortion, things are even more complicated. Alone, the issue of how far along one can be and still get an abortion exponentially complicates the question.

I personally think things start to get sketchy after the first trimester. You'll get no argument from me that a third trimester abortion is ending a life, period. So I think abortion is wrong for a majority of the gestation period, yet I must answer abortion is "right" to accurately reflect my opinion.

So says you.



*As an aside, I never understood the "one blank", so no one really knows if they were the one who pulled the trigger mentality when it comes to execution. If you point a rifle at someone's heart and pull the trigger, you are responsible. I don't care what your rifle was loaded with.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Oh please people. I'm not comparing anal sex to abortion. I'm just saying you can think something is totally wrong, but don't necessary think a law to be pass to make it illegal.

You missed my point. There are no victims in homosexuality. There are victims in abortion. So, to say that you don't need to legislate it is BS. Would you say that if you don't like slavery, then you just shouldn't have slaves? No, you wouldn't because you would feel an obligation to free the slaves who were being abused. Pro life people feel an obligation to save the lives of the babies that are being killed by their mothers.

[Chuckit]

You still missed his point. He's not commenting on whether abortion should be legal or illegal — he's just saying it's possible to think something is wrong but not think it should be illegal. It is, of course, also possible to think something is wrong and should be illegal — it's just not necessary.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

You missed my point. There are no victims in homosexuality. There are victims in abortion. So, to say that you don't need to legislate it is BS. Would you say that if you don't like slavery, then you just shouldn't have slaves? No, you wouldn't because you would feel an obligation to free the slaves who were being abused. Pro life people feel an obligation to save the lives of the babies that are being killed by their mothers.

Oh, you totally missed my point. It was a direct response to Kevin. Not a response to abortion. My point wasn't even about abortion!!!

Here's my point again.

You can think something is morally wrong, but are not in favor of law banning it. You can think pornography is morally wrong, but you are not in favor law banning porn.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You still missed his point. He's not commenting on whether abortion should be legal or illegal — he's just saying it's possible to think something is wrong but not think it should be illegal. It is, of course, also possible to think something is wrong and should be illegal — it's just not necessary.

Thanks chuckit. At least someone got my point.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

You missed my point. There are no victims in homosexuality. There are victims in abortion.

There is no victim in an abortion that takes place within the first few weeks of pregnancy. After 6 - 8 weeks. Yes. I agree.

But if something is 1/4 of an inch long....doesn't have a brain, a heart, or or a central nervous system...how can you call it a human?

I'd like to see you put one in a stroller and go to the supermarket.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's not remotely comparable. When people say they are against abortion but pro-choice, they mean they think it's usually the wrong decision, but they think people should be free to make that decision themselves. I think many of the things you have said in this thread are tacky and inappropriate, but I defend your right to say them legally — same principle.

Again, if it didn't involve murder it wouldn't be a big deal. I have the same stance with gay relationships. It's against my beliefs, but people can do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone. Abortion you just can't say that with. Abortion isn't a walk in the park.

By the way, what is with the overuse of the word "fuzzy" lately? Did you and aberdeenwriter get together and decide that would be your Meaningless Insult Of The Day? Should some of the liberals get together and decide on "misogynist bastard" to match, so then we can have a total lack of meaningful discussion and just throw out stereotypes all day?

No, I use it because that is exactly what it is. Fuzzy thinking.

So yes you can think something is wrong, yet still think it should be legal. Murdering another living, growing human being however shouldn't be one of those things.

Now, you can try to justify it by "fuzzy thinking" by calling it a fetus. But that doesn't change the facts.

[hyteckit]

I hope you guys understand the ramifications of passing law that gives human rights to embryos and fetuses. Considering there is a quarter of a million miscarriages a year, there's going to be lot of manslaughter charges and lots on young girls and mature women will be put in jail.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, if it didn't involve murder it wouldn't be a big deal. I have the same stance with gay relationships. It's against my beliefs, but people can do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone. Abortion you just can't say that with. Abortion isn't a walk in the park.

Yes, if you think abortion is murder, of course it's incongruous to support its legality. But as I said, not everyone agrees with that premise. I really don't care what you call it, but I do not think the fetus/baby/saint inside the woman is completely the same as a fully formed person. What gives a person moral value is not his genes, not his body — it's his mind, and I don't think the fetus/baby/saint has that the same way we do, at least in the early stages. So why would it be inconsistent for somebody who believes similarly to me to support the legality of abortion?

[Moderator]

Fuzzy Math is what GW used to describe Al Gore's surplus (remember that?) calculations in the 2000 debates....before he promptly turned it into...well we all know what happened.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I hope you guys understand the ramifications of passing law that gives human rights to embryos and fetuses. Considering there is a quarter of a million miscarriages a year, there's going to be lot of manslaughter charges and lots on young girls and mature women will be put in jail.

Funny that no one made that quantum leap before roe v. wade.

And you are comparing a natural process to ramming a tube up a woman and deliberately killing the baby/fetus/embryo/hamsandwich that is inside her.